Do topical repellents divert mosquitoes within a community? Health equity implications of topical repellents as a mosquito bite prevention tool.

OBJECTIVES: Repellents do not kill mosquitoes--they simply reduce human-vector contact. Thus it is possible that individuals who do not use repellents but dwell close to repellent users experience more bites than otherwise. The objective of this study was to measure if diversion occurs from households that use repellents to those that do not use repellents. METHODS: The study was performed in three Tanzanian villages using 15%-DEET and placebo lotions. All households were given LLINs. Three coverage scenarios were investigated: complete coverage (all households were given 15%-DEET), incomplete coverage (80% of households were given 15%-DEET and 20% placebo) and no coverage (all households were given placebo). A crossover study design was used and coverage scenarios were rotated weekly over a period of ten weeks. The placebo lotion was randomly allocated to households in the incomplete coverage scenario. The level of compliance was reported to be close to 100%. Mosquito densities were measured through aspiration of resting mosquitoes. Data were analysed using negative binomial regression models. FINDINGS: Repellent-users had consistently fewer mosquitoes in their dwellings. In villages where everybody had been given 15%-DEET, resting mosquito densities were fewer than half that of households in the no coverage scenario (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR]=0.39 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.60); p<0.001). Placebo-users living in a village where 80% of the households used 15%-DEET were likely to have over four-times more mosquitoes (IRR=4.17; 95% CI: 3.08-5.65; p<0.001) resting in their dwellings in comparison to households in a village where nobody uses repellent. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that high coverage of repellent use could significantly reduce man-vector contact but with incomplete coverage evidence suggests that mosquitoes are diverted from households that use repellent to those that do not. Therefore, if repellents are to be considered for vector control, strategies to maximise coverage are required

Physiological and Morphological Aspects of Aedes aegypti Developing Larvae: Effects of the Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor Novaluron

Population control of the dengue vector mosquito, Aedes aegypti, is difficult due to many reasons, one being the development of resistance to neurotoxic insecticides employed. The biosynthesis of chitin, a major constituent of insect cuticle, is a novel target for population control. Novaluron is a benzoylphenylurea (BPU) that acts as a chitin synthesis inhibitor, already used against mosquitoes. However, information regarding BPU effects on immature mosquito stages and physiological parameters related with mosquito larval development are scarce. A set of physiological parameters were recorded in control developing larvae and novaluron was administered continuously to Ae. aegypti larvae, since early third instar. Larval instar period duration was recorded from third instar until pupation. Chitin content was measured during third and fourth instars. Fourth instars were processed histochemically at the mesothorax region, stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE) for assessment of internal tissues, and labeled with WGA-FITC to reveal chitinized structures. In control larvae: i) there is a chitin content increase during both third and fourth instars where late third instars contain more chitin than early fourth instars; ii) thoracic organs and a continuous cuticle, closely associated with the underlying epidermis were observed; iii) chitin was continuously present throughout integument cuticle. Novaluron treatment inhibited adult emergence, induced immature mortality, altered adult sex ratio and caused delay in larval development. Moreover, novaluron: i) significantly affected chitin content during larval development; ii) induced a discontinuous and altered cuticle in some regions while epidermis was often thinner or missing; iii) rendered chitin cuticle presence discontinuous and less evident. In both control and novaluron larvae, chitin was present in the peritrophic matrix. This study showed quantitatively and qualitatively evidences of novaluron effects on Ae. aegypti larval development. To our knowledge, this is the first report describing histological alterations produced by a BPU in immature vector mosquitoes

Monitoring fever treatment behaviour and equitable access to effective medicines in the context of initiatives to improve ACT access: baseline results and implications for programming in six African countries

BACKGROUND: Access to artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) remains limited in high malaria-burden countries, and there are concerns that the poorest people are particularly disadvantaged. This paper presents new evidence on household treatment-seeking behaviour in six African countries. These data provide a baseline for monitoring interventions to increase ACT coverage, such as the Affordable Medicines Facility for malaria (AMFm). METHODS: Nationally representative household surveys were conducted in Benin, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Madagascar, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia between 2008 and 2010. Caregivers responded to questions about management of recent fevers in children under five. Treatment indicators were tabulated across countries, and differences in case management provided by the public versus private sector were examined using chi-square tests. Logistic regression was used to test for association between socioeconomic status and 1) malaria blood testing, and 2) ACT treatment. RESULTS: Fever treatment with an ACT is low in Benin (10%), the DRC (5%), Madagascar (3%) and Nigeria (5%), but higher in Uganda (21%) and Zambia (21%). The wealthiest children are significantly more likely to receive ACT compared to the poorest children in Benin (OR = 2.68, 95% CI = 1.12-6.42); the DRC (OR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.12-4.24); Madagascar (OR = 5.37, 95% CI = 1.58-18.24); and Nigeria (OR = 6.59, 95% CI = 2.73-15.89). Most caregivers seek treatment outside of the home, and private sector outlets are commonly the sole external source of treatment (except in Zambia). However, children treated in the public sector are significantly more likely to receive ACT treatment than those treated in the private sector (except in Madagascar). Nonetheless, levels of testing and ACT treatment in the public sector are low. Few caregivers name the national first-line drug as most effective for treating malaria in Madagascar (2%), the DRC (2%), Nigeria (4%) and Benin (10%). Awareness is higher in Zambia (49%) and Uganda (33%). CONCLUSIONS: Levels of effective fever treatment are low and inequitable in many contexts. The private sector is frequently accessed however case management practices are relatively poor in comparison with the public sector. Supporting interventions to inform caregiver demand for ACT and to improve provider behaviour in both the public and private sectors are needed to achieve maximum gains in the context of improved access to effective treatment

Are hygiene and public health interventions likely to improve outcomes for Australian Aboriginal children living in remote communities? A systematic review of the literature

Background Australian Aboriginal children living in remote communities still experience a high burden of common infectious diseases which are generally attributed to poor hygiene and unsanitary living conditions. The objective of this systematic literature review was to examine the epidemiological evidence for a relationship between various hygiene and public health intervention strategies, separately or in combination, and the occurrence of common preventable childhood infectious diseases. The purpose was to determine what intervention/s might most effectively reduce the incidence of skin, diarrhoeal and infectious diseases experienced by children living in remote Indigenous communities. Methods Studies were identified through systematically searching electronic databases and hand searching. Study types were restricted to those included in Cochrane Collaboration Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group (EPOC) guidelines and reviewers assessed the quality of studies and extracted data using the same guidelines. The types of participants eligible were Indigenous populations and populations of developing countries. The types of intervention eligible for inclusion were restricted to those likely to prevent conditions caused by poor personal hygiene and poor living environments. Results The evidence showed that there is clear and strong evidence of effect of education and handwashing with soap in preventing diarrhoeal disease among children (consistent effect in four studies). In the largest well-designed study, children living in households that received plain soap and encouragement to wash their hands had a 53% lower incidence of diarrhoea (95% CI, 0.35, 0.59). There is some evidence of an effect of education and other hygiene behaviour change interventions (six studies), as well as the provision of water supply, sanitation and hygiene education (two studies) on reducing rates of diarrhoeal disease. The size of these effects is small and the quality of the studies generally poor. Conclusion Research which measures the effectiveness of hygiene interventions is complex and difficult to implement. Multifaceted interventions (which target handwashing with soap and include water, sanitation and hygiene promotion) are likely to provide the greatest opportunity to improve child health outcomes in remote Indigenous communities

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation &lt;92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p&lt;0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research